In case you missed 2006, Kerry led the filibuster on Alito - if he were President Roberts and Alito would not be there, two reasonable justices would be and last weeks campaign finance ruling would not have occured.

Kerry would have had a regional summit and we would already be out of Iraq and likely Afghanistan would have been handled when we were still in the window of opportunity that still existed - so we might be out or in better shape there.

Not to mention, Kerry was as strong as any other Senator in actually standing up against the use of torture and for the Geneva conventions. (He was stronger in 2004 than Obama in 2008 - even though it would have been much easier in 2008 - and Kerry's comments from 2006 on were extremely strong.)

Kerry would not have ignored Katrina, he would have led the efforts, at least making sure that people knew he cared.

Now, on this - what are the choices? To throw up his hands and say nothing can be done? Write the best bill he and experts could that would not come close to passing, but which would impress people with its purity and brilliance?

There are at least 14 Democrats beholden to coal, why criticize Kerry when people like Feingold, Sherrod Brown, Al Franken etc call for no cuts in coal or the carbon it produces. If you believe the science, it is not Kerry who is the problem - he has done as much as he could for decades. The fact is that the problem is these 14 Senators, who either don't believe the science or are unwilling to sacrifice anything to avoid catastrophe. No amount of legislative skill, eloquence or brilliance will allow Kerry to pass a partisan bill - he needs 60 and in this case, reconciliation is NOT possible because people like Feingold voted against it.

3. How do you propose passing Climate legislation with just Democrats?

Now the fact is that they need 60 votes, on this issue they do not even have the possibility of using reconciliation because the provision to do so was voted down. There are not 60 Democrats period and the fact is that this issue does not split neatly on Democrat/Republican.

The fact is that 14 Democrats wrote a letter saying that any cap and trade needed to give coal power plants FREE PASSES to produce the amount of carbon they now do. The list included Franken, Feingold and Sherrod Brown.

For a different reason, I was looking at Feingold's votes last year - here are four votes he cast in the first half of 2009:

- Omnibus Public Land Management bill 2009 cloture vote - Feingold was the ONLY Democrat to vote against it - but both than voted for the bill when cloture succeeded.

- to waive the CBA on Whitehouse's amendment for a deficit neutral fund for clean energy

Now, Feingold is a good, progressive Senator - but can Kerry count on him here? I seriously doubt it.

So, would you prefer that Kerry and Boxer write the perfect bill, which they could, and get say 20 votes for it - and then say it was right to stay pure on this. It will be extremely hard to get anything on this - the fact is that healthcare ate the time and political capital that could have enabled Kerry to get a compromise bill through.

It is not for lack of trying. Kerry has been on this issue for decades and yes, he is smart enough to know that something is better than nothing - and nothing is the alternative. Even if a bill did half of what was needed, it means that we are better off when it becomes clear we need to do more. (Yeah I know for Kerry and many others it is perfectly clear that we need to do more right now.)

Nit to mention, when it comes down to it, do the 14 Democrats who signed that letter really believe in it? They either are playing a game to get Boxer and Kerry to give them something or their actions show that they are willing to risk possibly going over the tipping point of climate chnage rather than teh certainty that this could hurt their economies.

How does Kerry get 60 people to agree to anything that significantly helps?

I believe, inexplicably, Senator Lindsey Graham was going to work with Kerry on this issue- until the teabaggers in SC started in on him. I believe that he has since retreated in the face of their ginormous "tea bags" and decided against working for the common good- if it means working with a DEMOCRATIC President, that is.

I would guess that Graham is already in enough trouble with them that he might as well go for the "maverick" label aa the teabaggers will not back him. There were actually many Republicans in play thanks to a lot of work by Kerry. I hope they can get something, but Copenhagen was a mess and the idea to do something this year might not happen if the US does nothing.

There is no one more committed in the Senate in the Senate than Kerry. I really hope he can do something, but your last sentence is likely what he is up against - 41 people in teh party of "No".

12. I'm afraid that the Republicans are starting to get scared of the teabaggers

which is why I have absolutely no optimism about ANY of them crossing the aisle and helping with anything for a long time (if ever). If we can get one or two of them to help move some important legislation, great, but to pretend that people (not pundits) care so much about bipartisanship that they are going to hold it against the Dems if they ram (meaning pass over solid Repub opposition) things through that help people is foolish and idiotic IMHO. The Repubs are ALWAYS going to complain about ANYTHING the Dems do, so why not just ignore the "party of no" and do the right thing? I sincerely hope that the Dems start making their case to the public NOT the Repubs about why we need to do something about whatever might really help people and force the Repubs to explain why they're against it.

I hope that climate change will be the thing that is different. Kerry has brought in business and military support - both things Democrats have rarely been able to do. He also has a history of being willing to allow others to get credit for things he really crafted if their egos needed it. He is really motivated by what he things needs to be done - in this case for the world. If that was true, even at an earlier stage where he always had the potential of a Presidential race, it would seem more likely now.

Last August, even with the 60, the CW was that climate change was unlikely to pass. It was the structure Kerry gave to it and the people he pulled (outside the Congress) to support it that created hope - and that hope accelerated when he and Graham wrote that op-ed. My guess is that Kerry might have had a chance because he was willing to work with these people (Collins, Snowe, Graham and even Corker) and he was winning over some of the coal Democrats if he would have had the floor in the fall. As much as anything, if this doesn't happen, it may be another victim of the healthcare battle.

This might have to wait for 2012, when hopefully we will still have both houses. (Not a certainty at this time.)

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.